<https://forum.spamcop.net/topic/1473-global-mailhosts-an-user-review-call-for-change/#comment-9317>
<http://schema.org/text>
"Yes, auto-reporting is just to easy for folks to allow mistakes to happen.  But, the mail-hosts is not a \"new way to report\" ... it's just an additional refinement and a datum set that has the goal of handling some forgeries and hopefully a side result of stopping the clueless from reporting themselves.  The actual \"reporting methods\" havem't changed. \n\n \n\n\nNot a Deputy, not involved in setting anything up, but I will tell you, there's no way in the world anyone can help you with so little data to look at anything.  And if you're continuing to change things (even though you're not a SA?), I'm not sure what you'd expect to be happening. \n\n \n\n\nand did you?  Was it accomplished? \n\n \n\n\nFor the same folks that can't seem to handle the 'simple' copy and paste to submit a spam for reporting purposes?  The same folks that can't get the response to an e-mail verification e-mail'd back to the SpamCop system?  These 'simple' tasks gather so much confusion but you'd suggest allowing these same folks to actually edit some database content?  Please .... \n\n \n\n\nWhy?  A single database of \"known good\" seems to make a bit more sense for the parsing tool set as compared to how many datasets to handle global, personal, special, different, and just frigging screwed up ... \n\n \n\n\nhuh? \n\n \n\n\nauto-reporting was already addressed as a bad thing, yet your complaint is based on any changes impacting your auto-reporting, which is exactly why auto-reporting is seen as a bad thing. ????  Obviously, I'm not following your logic, or you're hell-bent on circumventing the checks and balances put into place to ensure proper reporting. \n"
<https://forum.spamcop.net/topic/1473-global-mailhosts-an-user-review-call-for-change/>